Lower Palaeozoic Crinoids of Bohemia. 107 



authors refer their genus to the family Actinocrinidae as 

 defined by Zittel in 1879. There is, however, nothing in 

 the part preserved (Fig. 2) to prevent its assignment to the 

 family Carpocrinidaa founded by the same authority ; and, to 

 speak even more precisely, there is no particular reason why 

 these cups should not belong to a Carpocrinus or Desmido- 

 crinus. The authors indeed say that " Bohemicocrinus is 

 distinguished from all other genera of crinoids described 

 down to this day, by the characteristic conformation of the 

 two radii on each side of the anal interradius, as well as by 

 the structure of the latter and of the other interradii." 

 When this was written the authors were doubtless unac- 

 quainted with the structure of the cup in Barrandeocrinus, 

 since that was first published by Wachmuth and Springer 

 in May 1897. The same peculiarities are emphasized in that 

 genus ; and yet the structure of the cup alone would scarcely 

 justify the removal of Barrandeocrinus from Carpocrinus. 

 It is highly improbable that Bohemicocrinus possessed the 

 remarkable arms of Barrandeocrinus ; therefore, though the 

 name Bohemicocrinus may be a convenient way of expres- 

 sing the imperfect nature of the known specimens, there 

 seems reason to think that it may ultimately prove a syno- 

 nym of Carpocrinus or Besmidocrinus. Eucalyptocrinus, Co- 

 rymbocrinus (= Clonocrin us, Quenst.), and Dolatocrinus have 

 no anal resting on the base, and it is not clear why they 

 should have been dragged into comparison. 



Carolicrinus is based on a crown and an arm-fragment 

 from the black limestone (e 1-2) of Karlstein (whence the 

 name), and another arm-fragment from the white limestone, 

 e 2, near Lochkov. These are all placed in a new 7 species, 

 C. Barrandei. This species is a many-plated camerate 

 crinoid not unlike Scyphocrinus, with which it is associated 

 in the rocks ; but the biserial arrangement of the brachials 

 would alone justify its severance therefrom. Unfortunately 

 the authors, impressed by the general resemblance to Scypho- 

 crinus, have not thought it necessary to compare Carolicrinus 

 with genera foreign to Bohemia. The imperfection of the 

 base also is held to excuse them from discussing the sys- 

 tematic position of the genus. The authors believe that 

 there were three basals, two large and one small, the latter 

 being in the posterior interradius (strange position !) ; and 

 they will not admit that the proximal anal rested on the 

 base. At the same time they " cannot quite guarantee the 

 correctness of the explanation just given." The published 

 figures do not help one even to the bare facts of the case, so 

 that an attempt at any other interpretation is out of the 



